Accounting for population structure in selective cow genotyping strategies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of the present study was to investigate the impact of considering population structure in cow genotyping strategies over the accuracy and bias of genomic predictions. A small dairy cattle population was simulated to address these objectives. Based on four main traditional designs (random, top-yield, extreme-yield and top-accuracy cows), different numbers (1,000; 2,000 and 5,000) of cows were sampled and included in the reference population. Traditional designs were replicated considering or not population structure and compared among and with a reference population containing only bulls. The inclusion of cows increased accuracy in all scenarios compared with using only bulls. Scenarios accounting for population structure when choosing cows to the reference population slightly outperformed their traditional versions by yielding higher accuracy and lower bias in genomic predictions. Building a cow-based reference population from groups of related individuals considering the frequency of individuals from those same groups in the validation population yielded promising results with applications on selection for expensive- or difficult-to-measure traits. Methods here presented may be easily implemented in both new or already established breeding programs, as they improved prediction and reduced bias in genomic evaluations while demanding no additional costs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".